So do we even have any form of moderation here?

So after the amazing shit show that was Gabe and Michelle crapping all over the message board here I think it is a good time to ask this question.

 

What happened here is ridiculous, two people were allowed to run wild like a couple of monkeys flinging shit everywhere.  Regardless of who you want to see as wrong or right there the fact remains that they were allowed to carry on completely unchecked.

 

Why?  Light moderation is one thing but why should two defective people be allowed to run wild like that?  Especially when others have been kicked off for doing the same?

 

Didn’t we kick off Beezodog for hijacking threads and not letting an argument die?

 

Of course that leads to another thing; we have some loose rules but they never seem to be enforced, why?



So what is it, do we have an enforce rules or can people just do whatever they like?  Because it mostly looks like people can just act however they want…

Views: 9111

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on September 4, 2014 at 7:24am

The current thread has discussed your behavior and violation of the previous and current rules, I do not think anybody has made any personal comments about you beyond your childish behavior. 

Vilda said:

Actually the current thread is in violation of the "personal attacks" rule as my name is in it many many many times. You asked.

Permalink Reply by Gecko on September 4, 2014 at 7:25am

I've been emailing back and forth with Julie about other things, and the need for stronger/better moderation came up at one point.  I can assure you that she is working to address and improve the moderation along with the site overhaul in the next few months.  If you have any suggestions for rules, moderation styles, or technical ways to moderate specific things, send her an email with your ideas and start your own conversation.  With the site overhaul, we have the opportunity to not necessarily start from zero, but vastly improve many things about it - one of which is the moderation.

notoriousDUG said:

  • The owner of the site has no input on what was or was not OK in what transpired or in how it was moderated.
Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on September 4, 2014 at 7:32am

I'm sorry but third party assurances that she is 'working to address the situation' are not really what I am looking for here. 

I would like to see Julie actually speak for herself here; choices were made on how to selectively enforce the rules and the person at the top has given no reasons as to why. 

My suggestions were made long ago and fell on deaf ears, Julie is aware of what they are.

Gecko said:

I've been emailing back and forth with Julie about other things, and the need for stronger/better moderation came up at one point.  I can assure you that she is working to address and improve the moderation along with the site overhaul in the next few months.  If you have any suggestions for rules, moderation styles, or technical ways to moderate specific things, send her an email with your ideas and start your own conversation.  With the site overhaul, we have the opportunity to not necessarily start from zero, but vastly improve many things about it - one of which is the moderation.

notoriousDUG said:

  • The owner of the site has no input on what was or was not OK in what transpired or in how it was moderated.
Permalink Reply by Vilda on September 4, 2014 at 7:33am

Without reading any others i would site this post as a personal attack.

notoriousDUG said:

The current thread has discussed your behavior and violation of the previous and current rules, I do not think anybody has made any personal comments about you beyond your childish behavior. 

Vilda said:

Actually the current thread is in violation of the "personal attacks" rule as my name is in it many many many times. You asked.

Permalink Reply by David Barish on September 4, 2014 at 8:57am


I don't think so. Doug's comments were made about childish behavior. He did not call you a child. Had he done so it would have been a personal attack but lets face it, a pretty mild one. Its much different from calling you a "@#$^ piece of &*@@". The latter would be pretty serious to me. Sure, there is a value judgement in calling one's behavior  childish vis a vis  other descriptors could be used. However, I think that holds us all up to too stringent a standard and requires more effort than should be required to post. Yeah, its a great idea to think before you post but punishment for such seems extreme to me. 

I think your comment was somewhat tongue in cheek given that Doug called your behavior (not you)childish while you said lots of things about Michelle that make "childish" seem extremely mild. 

Would I be subject to sanction for suggesting that you be spanked as I did in an earlier post? I didn't call anybody a child but there is certainly an inference to be made. My comment was admittedly made with tongue in cheek.

Returning to the thread, which seems like a good idea under our newly released guidelines, Doug seems to want clearer, perhaps harsher and what he perceives as more evenhanded moderation. I can't speak to that as I have not been in that cabal. I would just say this. More precise guidelines might make it easier for some to act so they know where the line is, they can see it and taste it. However, I think that would make the discussion  a lot less colorful and  more boring. Also, Getting what you ask for would likely make most of this thread evaporate. Is that a desired goal? A looser guideline is open to abuse. We will have to  see how that plays out. It also gives people a chance. For example, the mere threat to post vile things just to make a point should not equate to a ban. 

I once volunteered for a group that worked with 8th graders about making a law. The law was simple- No vehicles in the park. We then talked about all the situations that would require an exception- ambulances, fire trucks. garbage trucks. Is a bike a vehicle etc. The kids then redrafted the law and the one sentence became pages of legalese. The goal is to achieve a balance. I think the same applies here. There is a balance between "stay on topic, no personal attacks" and a policy that is so detailed it requires one of my kind. The new policy seems to straddle that middle ground. We will see how things go. 

Lets calm down, have some fun and ride out bikes. This way none of us will be asked to sit in the corner. 


Vilda said:

Without reading any others i would site this post as a personal attack.

notoriousDUG said:

The current thread has discussed your behavior and violation of the previous and current rules, I do not think anybody has made any personal comments about you beyond your childish behavior. 

Vilda said:

Actually the current thread is in violation of the "personal attacks" rule as my name is in it many many many times. You asked.

Permalink Reply by Vilda on September 4, 2014 at 9:24am

Hi David,  You seem very even keeled. Other parties, including me, not so much. There are parties who in real life have felt slighted by me that would use a forum such as this to that end.  If we are looking to draw the line, as some would say, than any name calling would be crossing the line into a personal attack.

I've told the moderators, and Julie directly, that if someone takes issue with my behavior please feel free to ban or boot me. I just dislike the vail of "proper behavior on a website" being used to mask true intentions.

In reality I have no issue with being called names by anyone on a website. Especially those I don't have much respect for in the first place. You are absolutely correct that my comment was tongue in cheek.

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on September 4, 2014 at 9:34am

Dave is a very reasonable person. Once again, I thought he addressed the situation appropriately.

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on September 4, 2014 at 9:50am

Don't flatter yourself into thinking there is anything personal about this.  Had anybody else acted like you do and been granted exception for it I would have had the same things to say.

What are my true intentions Gabe?  All I want is to see rules enforced evenly whatever they are.

Vilda said:

Hi David,  You seem very even keeled. Other parties, including me, not so much. There are parties who in real life have felt slighted by me that would use a forum such as this to that end.  If we are looking to draw the line, as some would say, than any name calling would be crossing the line into a personal attack.

I've told the moderators, and Julie directly, that if someone takes issue with my behavior please feel free to ban or boot me. I just dislike the vail of "proper behavior on a website" being used to mask true intentions.

In reality I have no issue with being called names by anyone on a website. Especially those I don't have much respect for in the first place. You are absolutely correct that my comment was tongue in cheek.

Permalink Reply by Vilda on September 4, 2014 at 10:01am

Always being me Douglas.

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on September 4, 2014 at 10:48am

I don't disagree with this but I think that the judgement used here is not always fair and impartial.  

As I have said before there were two people acting out, but only one of them was sanctioned for it, I think the difference in how they were dealt with to have been favoritism on a large scale. 

h' 1.0 said:

Julie and Lee have been more than clear that the current approach involves using adult judgment and reasoning to look at and weigh each case individually.  Ultimately I think doing so is a much better approach than applying hard and fast rules in a one-size-fits-every-situation way.  

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on September 4, 2014 at 10:48am

Not an answer to my question.

Vilda said:

Always being me Douglas.

Permalink Reply by Lisa Curcio on September 4, 2014 at 12:39pm

Yes, as h' says, it is her site.  Doug, your opinion has been repeated more than several times. You are entitled to your opinion. But Julie is not under any obligation to respond, although I am sure your opinion has been duly noted.  

Sometimes I think what is lost in these discussions is the notion that we CHOOSE to be here and to participate.  No one has compelled us.  Nothing ties us here.  We don't "have any skin in the game". We always have the ability to tune out or tune off.  


h' 1.0 said:

Hard to know without having access to the same information and input that the site leadership does.  Which the site leadership has no obligation to share with you.

But, for the sake of argument-- let's say Julie wakes up one morning and decides she's going to make unfair and partial decisions all day...

It's her site.

notoriousDUG said:

I don't disagree with this but I think that the judgement used here is not always fair and impartial.  

As I have said before there were two people acting out, but only one of them was sanctioned for it, I think the difference in how they were dealt with to have been favoritism on a large scale. 

h' 1.0 said:

Julie and Lee have been more than clear that the current approach involves using adult judgment and reasoning to look at and weigh each case individually.  Ultimately I think doing so is a much better approach than applying hard and fast rules in a one-size-fits-every-situation way.  

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service